MHB How can we find the coefficients?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Coefficients
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving for the coefficients \( c_j \) in the general solution of the initial value problem \( u'(t) = Au(t) \) with given eigenvalues and eigenvectors of matrix \( A \). The initial condition leads to the equation \( u^0 = \sum_{j=1}^m c_j \phi^{(j)} \), prompting questions about using the inverse of the eigenvector matrix to isolate \( c_j \). Participants explore whether the eigenvectors are functions of time and the implications of orthonormality, particularly in relation to the symmetry of matrix \( A \). The conversation concludes with the acknowledgment that further simplification of the formula for \( c_j \ may depend on additional properties of \( A \).
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

We have the initial value problem $$u'(t)=Au(t) \ \ , \ \ 0 \leq t \leq T \\ u(0)=u^0 \\ u \in \mathbb{R}^m$$ A is a $m \times m$ matrix

The eigenvalues of $A$ are $\lambda_j$ and the corresponding eigenvectors are $\phi^{(j)}$.

The general solution of initial value problem is $$u(t)=\sum_{j=1}^m c_j e^{\lambda_jt}\phi^{(j)}$$

right??

For $t=0$ we have $$u^0=\sum_{j=1}^m c_j \phi^{(j)}$$ How can we solve for $c_j$ ?? (Wondering)

Do we maybe have to use a dot product?? (Wondering)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

We have the initial value problem $$u'(t)=Au(t) \ \ , \ \ 0 \leq t \leq T \\ u(0)=u^0 \\ u \in \mathbb{R}^m$$ A is a $m \times m$ matrix

The eigenvalues of $A$ are $\lambda_j$ and the corresponding eigenvectors are $\phi^{(j)}$.

The general solution of initial value problem is $$u(t)=\sum_{j=1}^m c_j e^{\lambda_jt}\phi^{(j)}$$

right??

For $t=0$ we have $$u^0=\sum_{j=1}^m c_j \phi^{(j)}$$ How can we solve for $c_j$ ?? (Wondering)

Do we maybe have to use a dot product?? (Wondering)

Hi! (Wave)

Let's make that:
$$u^0=\sum_{j=1}^m c_j \phi^{(j)} = \Big(\phi^{(j)}\Big) \begin{bmatrix}c_1\\c_2\\\vdots\\c_n\end{bmatrix}$$
See how we can solve it for $c_j$? (Wondering)
 
Last edited:
I like Serena said:
Let's make that:
$$u^0=\sum_{j=1}^m c_j \phi^{(j)}(0) = \Big(\phi^{(j)}(0)\Big) \begin{bmatrix}c_1\\c_2\\\vdots\\c_n\end{bmatrix}$$
See how we can solve it for $c_j$? (Wondering)

Are the eigenvectors $\phi^{(j)}$ a function of $t$?? (Wondering) Because you write $\phi^{(j)}(0)$.

$\Big (\phi^{(j)}(0)\Big )$ is a matrix, isn't it?? (Wondering) So, we have to find the inverse, or not??
 
mathmari said:
Are the eigenvectors $\phi^{(j)}$ a function of $t$?? (Wondering) Because you write $\phi^{(j)}(0)$.

No I didn't! (Blush)

$\phi^{(j)}$ is a matrix, isn't it?? (Wondering) So, we have to find the inverse, or not??

Yep. (Nod)
 
I like Serena said:
Yep. (Nod)

So, $$u^0\Big (\phi^{(j)}\Big )^{-1}=\begin{bmatrix}
c_1\\
c_2\\
\cdot\\
\cdot\\
\cdot \\
c_m
\end{bmatrix}$$ Is this correct?? (Wondering)

Now we have the vector $\begin{bmatrix}
c_1\\
c_2\\
\cdot\\
\cdot\\
\cdot \\
c_m
\end{bmatrix}$. How can we write the formula for $c_j$ ?? (Wondering)

I found in my book the following solution $$u(t)=\sum_{j=1}^m e^{\lambda t}(u(0), \phi^{(j)})\phi^{(j)}$$ where $(\cdot , \cdot)$ is the euclidean dot product.
But how did we find that?? (Wondering)
 
mathmari said:
So, $$u^0\Big (\phi^{(j)}\Big )^{-1}=\begin{bmatrix}
c_1\\
c_2\\
\cdot\\
\cdot\\
\cdot \\
c_m
\end{bmatrix}$$ Is this correct?? (Wondering)

The product is not commutative, so that should be
$$\Big (\phi^{(j)}\Big )^{-1} u^0=\begin{bmatrix}
c_1\\
c_2\\
\cdot\\
\cdot\\
\cdot \\
c_m
\end{bmatrix}$$
Now we have the vector $\begin{bmatrix}
c_1\\
c_2\\
\cdot\\
\cdot\\
\cdot \\
c_m
\end{bmatrix}$. How can we write the formula for $c_j$ ?? (Wondering)

That is a formula for $c_j$. To simplify it, we'd need more information, like $A$ being symmetric. (Wasntme)

I found in my book the following solution $$u(t)=\sum_{j=1}^m e^{\lambda t}(u(0), \phi^{(j)})\phi^{(j)}$$ where $(\cdot , \cdot)$ is the euclidean dot product.
But how did we find that?? (Wondering)

Looks there is an assumption in there that the eigenvectors are orthonormal.
I think that is only possible if the matrix $A$ is symmetric, but that does not seem to be given - or is it? (Wondering)
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top